from the privacy? dept

Reader Ido alerts us to the news coming out of Israel, that the Senate there has moved forward on a bill that would create a huge biometric database including data on all Israelis, and refusing to provide such data could land anyone a year in jail. As the article notes, there's a rather loud uproar about this, as many Israelis fear not only for their own privacy and civil liberties, but wonder just how such a database will be abused -- either by gov't officials or by hackers. It sounds like the bill still has a ways to go before becoming law, but this appears to be yet another move by a government to mistakenly assert that taking away people's privacy somehow makes them more secure.

from the just-a-suggestion dept

People who have grown up with social networking type sites and applications have become used to the idea of really documenting their lives with them: providing detailed updates and regularly uploading photos of their activities. That's great for most folks -- but if you're in an elite military unit in a war zone, that might present a problem. An Israeli soldier has been sentenced to 19 days in jail after the military noticed that he'd been posting photos of the base where he was stationed to Facebook where anyone could see them. You would think that it would be common sense not to do such a thing... but common sense sometimes isn't so common.

from the don't-believe-the-hype dept

Every February, a US lobbying group called the International Intellectual Property Alliance comes out with a "report" to the US Trade Representative, supposedly highlighting which countries aren't living up to their obligations with regards to "piracy" and copyright law. The hope is to get the USTR to put that country on a special watch list. In recent years, much of the focus has been on blaming countries that don't implement draconian copyright laws (even more draconian than those in place in the US), claiming incorrectly that failing to create DMCA-like laws is a failure to live up to international treaties. That's simply not true. Michael Geist is now pointing out that Israel, who was highlighted in this year's report, has responded to the "inaccuracies and hyperbole" in the report. The Israeli response includes a rather lengthy discussion of all the things the country has already done to put in place more American-style copyright and patent laws, but does push back on a couple of important points. Specifically, in discussing the fact that it hasn't put in place DMCA-style anti-circumvention laws for DRM (which is referred to as "Technology Protection Measures" or TPM):

Internal discussions on whether to implement TPM continue and in this respect the GOI [Government of Israel] notes that the experience with TPM around the world has not been uniform, nor has it achieved the results that many of its early promoters thought it would. Additionally, comments received by the Ministry of Justice following a "request" for comments on the subject of TPM, indicate that many several large authors' groups vehemently oppose TPM, while other right holders categories favor TPM. The critiques and criticism of TPM both from business model perspectives and from copyright perspectives are almost endless. Indeed, some content providers are already experimenting with non-encrypted access to content. Hence, the question of whether and in what manner to implement TPM is not straightforward and politically volatile.

Given that so many in the entertainment industry are (belatedly) realizing the pointlessness of DRM, the above paragraph is rather restrained. The response then pushes back on complaints that the safe harbors for ISPs and notice-and-takedown provisions it has for infringing content online are too lenient. In the US system, an ISP is supposed to just take the content down when informed of infringement. Israel decided on a much more balanced system that gives the other side at least a chance to respond. This seems reasonable, but it doesn't make the content industry happy. The explanation from the Israeli government is worth reading:

The notice and
takedown provisions are balanced and reasonable as between the rights of persons
claiming injury (copyright or libel for example) and the rights of free expression.
Where allegedly infringing material is notified to the ISP or host and the uploader
fails to refute the charges within three days, the offending material will be removed.
The IIPA, it appears, prefers a system wherein ISPs and hosts would have to take
down material as soon as there is an allegation of infringement, without need for due
process or rebuttal. A "takedown" system which operates on the basis of a mere
allegation of infringement would be an invitation to censorship and abuse of process.
To require "take down" on the basis of "constructive notice" alone, as desired by the
IIPA, would require the ISP or Host to make rulings of law as to whether certain
content infringes copyright or is libelous or otherwise actionable, something that only
courts have competency to do. Again to require takedown on the basis of
"constructive notice" (i.e. the allegation of an interested party) alone would be an
invitation to censorship, abuse and restraints on free speech. It is not the role of the
ISP or Host to become a policeman of content. Requiring such would effectively
bring the internet to a halt. Similarly, protecting the anonymity, to a reasonable extent,
of uploaders of content is essential to the promotion of free speech and discourse on
the internet, provided that a court has not ruled differently.

There's also a nice bit in the response to the claim that Israel's latest copyright law does not implement a "fair use" policy exactly the way the IIPA would like it. The Israeli government's basic response notes that even the US's own definition of fair use doesn't match what the IIPA is asking Israel to implement, pointing out that its own fair use rules are almost identical to the US's. It's nice to see at least some people pointing out the ridiculous claims made by lobbyists trying to push for even more draconian and limiting copyright laws outside the US.

from the down-goes-another-one dept

The entertainment industry really has a way about convincing judges and politicians that something really awful is going on with bittorrent search engines -- despite the fact that they have yet to present any evidence that any of them are illegal. Since they're search engines, they are not hosting any infringing content, and there are plenty of legitimate uses of these systems, as can be seen by the fact that Trent Reznor just used various torrent sites to help promote his latest album (which appears to be doing quite well). If there are problems with particular content, the answer isn't to blame the site, but to go after those responsible for offering up the infringing content itself. Yet, through various scare tactics, the entertainment industry convinces judges and politicians that it's the search engines' fault. The latest is in Israel, where the IFPI has convinced a judge to order the country's largest ISPs to block a torrent site named Httpshare. This doesn't appear to fit with the laws in Israel at all, which has some wondering why the judge would make such an order. Of course, the end result will likely backfire on the IFPI. Remember, it was just a few weeks ago that a Danish court similarly ordered ISPs to block Pirate Bay. The end result was just to generate a lot more attention for Pirate Bay increasing traffic greatly from Denmark. The same thing is likely to now happen in Israel with Httpshare, a site I'd never heard about. There will be rather easy workarounds for users who want to get there, and thanks to the IFPI putting it in the headlines, chances are many more people will go check it out.

from the controversy-follows-Google-around dept

A few years back, there was a bit of a controversy after Taiwanese officials got upset with Google for including Taiwan as a part of China in its Google Maps offering. When it comes to disputed maps and sovereignty, it's no surprise that the map makers are drawn into regional conflicts on which they wish they could remain neutral. Now that Google is increasingly allowing user generated content to appear on Google Earth and Google Maps, things get even more confusing. In fact, reader Jason writes in to let us know of a brewing controversy, where a town in Israel is suing Google over a note placed on Google Earth by a user, suggesting that the town itself was built on the ruins of a Palestinian town, whose residents were forced out. The people in the town deny this, and say that the land was barren and uninhabited when they arrived and built the town following World War II.

No matter what your opinion on the history of the land, it's difficult to see how Google is liable. The person who created the note is easily identified. In fact, the AP reporter spoke to him, and he noted that he would gladly change the note on Google Earth if presented with more evidence that the Palestinian town was actually located elsewhere. Either way, it's hard to see how anyone really benefits from this particular argument or lawsuit. Google merely provided the platform, and arguing (and suing) about what town existed where at what point hardly seems like a productive path for anyone. Still, don't be surprised to see other complaints lodged against Google for content found on Google Earth. People tend to take things like maps pretty seriously, which is why there are occasional wars over how those lines are drawn. By opening up the possibility of "virtually" drawing lines however people want, Google is opening the door to quite a bit of animosity within certain disputed regions. One would hope that people would recognize there are more productive issues to focus on -- but that seems unlikely.

from the seems-a-bit-slow dept

Someone who apparently prefers to remain anonymous submitted to us the news that Israeli security companies are warning people to stay away from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blog, as it installs some spyware. What struck me as odd about that story was that this is not news at all. In fact, it was widely reported in the weeks following the launch of Ahmadinejad's blog. The blog watches to see if your IP address is from Israel and then tries to install the spyware (if you're using Windows). So, why is it suddenly being reported in Israel that this is happening, when it was well known about a year and a half ago? Isn't that a little late to try to get the warning out?

from the sorry,-no-anonymity-for-you dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous writes in to let us know that: "An Israeli court has ordered Google to reveal the identity of a blogger that uses Google's own blogging platform, Blogger. The blogger accused a Shaarei Tikva comity member of illegal acts all through his blog posts. Google objected to the request claiming freedom of speech, however the court sided with the plaintiff and said that since the plaintiff is a public figure running for reelection, he is allowed to confront his accuser and clear his name." Google did, apparently, try to reach the blogger in question who did not respond, and the company only needs to hand over an IP address -- which isn't necessarily the blogger's "identity," though it could lead to it. There's nothing wrong with a court requiring a service provider to cough up identifying information on someone who has broken the law -- but it gets into very tricky territory when it comes to things like libel. We recently covered a number of similar cases in the UK where the results were the same -- but a case in the US had the judge determine that the anonymous speech was protected and the person shouldn't be revealed. It seems likely that we're only going to see more of these cases over time -- and questions about jurisdiction are only going to make them more confusing. What if the blogger in this case actually resides in the US, for example?